On January 31, the Wyoming House of Representatives passed HB 179, by Rep.
Mike Massie (D-Laramie). It cuts the number of signatures needed for a new party
from 8,000 signatures, to 5,000. It also sets the deadline at June 1 (existing
law is May 1) and says the petition can start to circulate 14 months before it
is due (instead of 12 months under current law). The vote was 40-19.

Traditionally, the Wyoming Senate has been friendlier to minor parties than
the Wyoming House, so the bill is expected to pass the Senate also. Since
Wyoming only has 240,000 registered voters, completion of the party petition of
8,000 signatures has always been a major problem for any group attempting it, so
HB 179 represents a major advance.

Although many Wyoming residents worked on the bill, Sydney Spiegel and
Derrick Parkhurst of the Labor Party, and Bill Strickland of the Reform Party,
worked especially hard, and the bill wouldn't exist without their efforts.

Utah

The Utah Elections Director, Kelleen Potter, wrote SB 78 and managed to get
it passed by the Utah Senate State & Local Affairs Committee on January 28.
It increases the petition requirement for a new party from 500 signatures to
5,000. It also makes it more difficult for a party to remain on the ballot, and
changes the petition deadline from March 1 to February 15. Potter did not
consult with any of the political parties which are affected by the bill. Her
original version called for 15,000 signatures, but the Senate committee lowered
it to 5,000.

On February 7, on a voice vote, the Senate defeated a motion to lower the
number of signatures to 2,000. The bill is virtually certain to pass the Senate
on Monday, February 10.

The bill does not change the number of votes needed for a party to remain on
the ballot, which is 2% of the total vote cast in the state for U.S. House of
Representatives. However, existing law permits a party to aggregate the vote for
all of its candidates for the U.S. House, or all of the vote for its State
Senate, or State House candidates, toward the goal of 2% of the statewide
congressional vote. The bill changes the law so that only a single candidate's
vote could count, toward the 2% vote.

Although it is true that 500 signatures is comparatively very easy, there are
flaws in the existing law which partially offset the low requirement. Utah law
requires that the petition state that the signers "are or desire to become
members" of the party circulating the petition. Similar language has been held
unconstitutional in Kentucky, New Mexico, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North
Carolina, South Dakota and West Virginia. No one has ever bothered to sue Utah
over this wording, since the number of signatures has been so low. In the
future, Utah may face problems with the petition wording, unless the bill is
amended to change the wording.

Also, the petition deadline is already very early, and the new February 15
deadline may face constitutional challenges in the future.

Activists hope to raise these, and other, points, when SB 78 has a hearing in
the House.

On January 23, HB 1168 passed the House State Affairs Committee; on February
7 it passed the House Appropriations Committee. It provides that a group with at
least 1,000 registered members, or which submits 10,000 signatures, would be a
qualified party, entitled to nominate by convention for all partisan office.

On January 17, the Virginia Senate passed SB 667, which would authorize
write-in votes for president. The vote was 40-0. The sponsor is Senator John
Edwards (D-Roanoke).

Virginia has been one of three states which permits write-in votes generally,
yet not for president. Previous bills to authorize write-ins for president have
failed in the Virginia legislature. The difference this time is probably that
Ralph Nader failed to get on the ballot in Virginia, and the fact that his
supporters were barred from even casting a write-in vote, gathered some media
attention.

Other Virginia election law bills have been defeated. SB 693, which would
have provided that party labels be placed on Virginia general election ballots,
was defeated on January 31 in the Senate, 14-26. HB 2010, which would have
lowered the vote test for parties from 10% to 3%, and HB 2003, which would have
lowered the number of signatures for third party and independent candidates,
failed in the House Elections Committee.

On February 6, a hearing was held in the North Dakota Senate Government
Committee on SB 2368, which eases the requirement for a party to remain on the
ballot. No one criticized the bill, which expands the definition of "party" from
one which polled 5% for Governor, to one which polled 5% for President or
Governor. The bill also abolishes the law which says that the Democratic and
Republican Parties are automatically qualified, no matter how few votes they
poll. If the bill passes, the Reform Party will be "qualified", since Ross Perot
polled 12% for president.

HB 1020, which would have outlawed fusion in South Dakota, passed the House
on January 22, but was defeated in the Senate State Affairs Committee on January
29, after Libertarian Jim Christen noticed the bill and rallied opposition to
it.

On January 17, Illinois Governor Jim Edgar signed HB 444, which abolishes the
device (sometimes called a "party circle" or "party lever") which makes it
possible for voters to vote for all candidates of one party, with a single mark
on the ballot. The bill was actually passed by the outgoing legislature on its
last day. Republicans sought the change.

The change will probably benefit minor party candidates for offices near the
bottom of the ballot (such as legislature and county office), since voters will
now need to look at each portion of the ballot, and are therefore more likely to
notice such candidates.

On February 6, Montana Governor Marc Racicot signed HB 26, which revises
access for presidential candidates to the presidential primary. The new law
requires a candidate either to have qualified for matching funds, or to submit
500 signatures. The old law had required either 2,000 signatures, or that the
candidate be "recognized" by major news media.

The Oregon Director of Elections has asked the legislature to pass HB 2203,
which increases the requirements for a party to remain on the ballot somewhat.
Current law requires a party to both: (1) poll 1% of the vote for any statewide
office; and (2) maintain registration membership of at least .05%. SB 2203 would
increase the registration test to one-tenth of 1% of the last gubernatorial
vote. If the bill passes, the registration requirement would rise from 947
members, to 1,219. The rationale for the bill is that it will be easier for a
party to know in advance, what the specific requirement will be.

A New Hampshire House Committee heard testimony on HB 417 on February 4. A
vote is expected in a few days. It would alter the definition of "political
party" from one which polled 3% for Governor, to one which polled 3% for any
statewide office. If the bill were to pass, the Libertarian and Reform Parties
would be "qualified".

Secretary of State Bill Gardiner testified against the bill; all other
testimony was favorable. Gardiner tried to persuade the committee that New
Hampshire is already very tolerant. He ignored the fact that New Hampshire is
one of only eleven states with no qualified third party.

1. Alabama: Rep. Warren Minnifield (D-Fairfield) expects to introduce
a bill to lower the vote test for a party to remain qualified, from 20%, to 10%.

2. Arizona: Rep. Carmine Cardamone (D-Tucson) expects to introduce a
bill to ease the independent candidate procedure. Ever since a 1993 change,
which requires independent candidates to submit a petition signed by 3% of the
number of registered independent voters (and provides that no one but
independents can sign), no independent candidates have managed to qualify for
statewide or congressional office in Arizona. The bill will provide that any
registered voter can sign; change the number of signatures to one-half of 1% of
the last vote cast; and change the deadline from June to August.

3. Hawaii:(See also this update.) The
Elections Director has proposed SB 1064 and HB 1400 (introduced by Senator
Norman Mizuguchi and Rep. Joseph Souki), identical bills which would somewhat
ease the requirements for a party to remain qualified. If the bills pass, the
Green Party will be on the ballot automatically for the years 1998 through 2008.
Unfortunately, the bills also provide that Social Security numbers must be shown
on new party petitions, even though this would violate the Federal Privacy Act.

4. Iowa: Senator Mary Lundby (R-Marion) and Representative Rebecca
Reynolds-Knight (D-Fairfield) will introduce bills which would provide a blank
line on the Iowa voter registration form, in the "political party" section.
Currently, Iowa voters must register Democratic, Republican, Reform, or "no
party". The bills would let voters write in the name of an unqualified party.

5. Maryland: Senator Paul Pinsky has again introduced his ballot
access improvement bill, SB 293. Senator David Craig has introduced SB 468,
which would also improve the existing law, but not as much; Craig's bill merely
lowers the petition requirement for statewide candidates (other than president)
from 3% of the number of registered voters, to 1%.

6. New York: Senator Serphin Maltese has introduced SB 1443, which
would prohibit blank spaces on the ballot between candidates. Currently, all New
York voters vote on mechanical voting machines, with the names of candidates
arranged by party column or party row. Sometimes, when there are only two
candidates for a particular office, there may be five or six blank spaces
separating the two candidates, so that the candidate of the less important party
is positioned so that voters don't even notice his or her name on the ballot.

Another New York bill, AB 2366, would set up a commission to study ballot
access for presidential primary candidates. Also, SB 561 and AB 1083 would
provide for ballot access by payment of a bond, to be forfeited if the candidate
fails to poll a certain share of the vote.

7. North Carolina:(See also this correction.)
Senator Wib Gulley (D-Durham) has introduced SB 2, which changes the petition
date for new parties from May to July, and eliminates wording which implies that
petition signers are "organizing" the new party.

8. South Carolina: Rep. James Cromer (Indp-Columbia) has introduced HB
3009, to legalize write-ins for president. South Carolina is one of only three
states which permits write-ins, yet doesn't permit them for president.

1. California:(See also this update.)
There will be a trial in California Democratic Party v Jones,
civ-5-96-2038, in July. The case, filed in federal court in Sacramento,
challenges the new blanket primary law. The Republican Party of California
recently joined the lawsuit, and other parties may join as well.

California (2): Both the Democratic and Republican Parties recently
filed lawsuits in federal court in Sacramento against the campaign finance
initiative which passed in November 1996. The new law limits the amount of money
political parties can spend on campaigns, limits the amount of money that
individuals may donate to political parties, bans independent expenditures by
parties, and declares that the national, state and local parties are all one
entity, for purposes of the act. Calif. Dem. Party v FPPC,
civ-s-97-0156, and Schroeder v FPPC, civ-s-97-0154.

California (3): Briefs are being filed in the 9th circuit in
NAACP v Jones, 96-56455, over whether the system by which judges
raise money for their re-election campaigns, violates the U.S. Constitution. The
lower court had said plaintiffs lack standing.

2. Florida: On January 14, U.S. District Court Judge K. Michael Moore
refused to strike down a Florida law which requires unqualified political
parties to post a $10,000 bond, just to register their names. Socialist
Workers Party v Leahy, 92-1451, federal court, Miami. Moore relied on
promises by the state that it will not enforce the law, even though last year,
the state did try to enforce it. The Socialist Workers and Green Parties may
appeal.

3. Georgia: The ACLU decided not to appeal Duke v Cleland
to the U.S. Supreme Court. This is disappointing, since it's a very interesting
case, which might well have been accepted by the court. The question is whether
a political party can keep candidates out of its primary, based on the
candidate's political views. The 11th circuit ruled that it may. The issue arose
in 1992 when David Duke sought to run in Republican presidential primaries.

Georgia (2):(See also this update.) Last
month, the Libertarian Party filed its brief in Amendola v Miller,
96-cv-2103 (U.S. District Court, Atlanta), over the law which requires the party
to submit petitions signed by 5% of the registered voters, to run for U.S. House
of Representatives, state legislature & county office, even though it is
qualified for statewide office.

4. Hawaii: on December 16, U.S. District Court Judge David Ezra ruled
that Hawaii cannot keep the list of registered voters private. Donrey
Media Group v Ikeda, cv96-713. The lawsuit was brought by several news
gatherers who wished to examine the list of voters. Since the law permits
political party officials to see the list, the judge ruled that the law (barring
the general public from seeing the list) violates the 14th amendment.

5. Indiana: On January 15, the 7th circuit ruled against fusion in
Stewart v Taylor, 96-3108, even though the issue is pending in the
U.S. Supreme Court. The 7th circuit had ruled against fusion back in 1991, also.
The case had been brought by a candidate who won the Republican primary for
Township Board, and then also won the Libertarian nomination for the same
office, at the party's nominating convention.

6. Iowa: there will be a hearing in the 8th circuit in Marcus v
Iowa Public TV, 96-3645, on April 15. All judges of that circuit will
hear the case, which is on appeal from a U.S. District Court. It is unusual for
any Court of Appeals to schedule an initial hearing before the entire
membership, but several judges in the circuit have staked out strong positions
(which don't agree with each other), so they each will now participate. The
issue is whether Public TV must invite all candidates who are on the ballot to
debate, when it sponsors the debate.

7. Minnesota: On December 11, the 8th circuit upheld Minnesota's
public financing law, which provides that if a candidate does not voluntarily
agree to accept campaign limits, his or her opponents may receive public funding
and also spend without limit. The vote wsa 2-1. Rosenstiel v
Rodriguez, 101 F 3d 1544 (1996).

8. New York: On December 2, U.S. District Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor
ruled that a federal court lacks jurisdiction to hear a damage suit, involving
the failure of New York city to provide write-in space in a city election back
in 1993. Gelb v Board of Elections, 94cv-13. The decision was
surprising, because back in 1995, the same judge had ruled that the case could
proceed.

9. Ohio: Independent congressional candidate Mark Miller has filed his
appeal brief in Miller v Lorain County Board of Elections, 96-4267.
The main issue is the customary lack of due process, when Ohio elections
officials validate petitions. Miller also challenges the disparity in the number
of signatures he needed as an independent (1,807) versus the number a candidate
for the same office needs to get on the primary ballot (50 signatures).

10. Virginia: On January 24, the 4th circuit agreed with the lower
court, that plaintiffs in Marshall v Meadows, 96-1685, lack
standing. The issue is whether the Republican Party can demand a closed primary
instead of one in which any registered voter may choose to vote in the party's
primary. However, since the Republican Party of Virginia itself was not a party
to the lawsuit, the case was dismissed.

11. West Virginia: the ACLU is about to file a lawsuit against a state
law which forces political signs to be placed at least 300 feet away from a
polling place.

The Libertarian Party of North Carolina has 28,000 signatures (51,324 are
required); the Green Party of Utah has 550 signatures (500 valid signatures are
required); the Reform Party of Tennessee has several thousand (37,179 are
required).

The Pennsylvania Secretary of State has tallied Ralph Nader's write-in vote:
3,086. This is the first time Pennsylvania state elections officials have ever
tallied write-ins for any presidential candidate. This brings Nader's national
total to 685,338.

Conservative column includes Independence Party of Connecticut. In addition
to the parties listed above, the Freedom Party of New York state polled 31,173
votes, all of them cast for candidates who were also Republican nominees.

The percentages reflect the number of votes received by each party for State
Senate in November 1996, divided by the number of voters in the districts in
which each particular party ran candidates. The Conservative column includes the
Independence Party of Connecticut. The Freedom Party of New York, not named
above, polled 1.16%.

On January 25-26, in Nashville, Tennessee, the Reform Party held a national
meeting, to begin the process of organizing itself. Each state was permitted one
voting delegate. Delegates attended from every state except Alaska, Georgia,
Hawaii, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, West Virginia and Wyoming.

The temporary chair of the meeting was Jack Essenberg, of New York state. The
body chose a 4-person national organizing committee: Chair Russell Verney,
vice-chair Dale Welch-Barlow of Oklahoma, Secretary Jim Mangia of California,
and Treasurer Carl Owenby of Florida.

One faction in the Reform Party is composed of people from states in which
the party already existed, before Ross Perot announced the new party in
September 1995. This faction, composed mostly of people from Minnesota, New York
and Oregon, was disappointed that it was not represented on the National
Organizing Committee, and some members of this faction walked out.

There will be a national convention, probably in October, with delegates to
be elected by congressional district.

B.A.N. has been on the Internet since 1994, thanks to the
volunteer efforts of Bob Bickford of San Jose, California. In addition to
converting each issue to a web document, Bickford also gathers related
information, constructs additional tables and charts, and adds links between
issues. OLD WEB ADDRESS; CHANGED IN Jan. 1998http://www.well.com/conf/liberty/ban/index.html Issues are online about
three weeks after they are mailed.

B.A.N. also wishes to thank the many subscribers who provide
information which would otherwise be missed, especially information about bills
in state legislatures.

ERRATA: The January 1997
B.A.N. carried correct registration totals for each political
party, but unfortunately the percentages for two of them were incorrect. The
percentage of voters who are registered "Libertarian" is .20%, not .14%; the
percentage registered "Green" is .14%, not .11%. (Detailed 1996
registration data was first presented in B.A.N. in the December 12, 1996
issue.)

On January 14, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Chandler v
Miller, no. 96-126, the case over whether Georgia may requires candidates
for state office to pass a drug test before qualifying for the ballot. A
decision is expected in a few months.

The oral argument showed clearly that the Court thinks of this case as a
Fourth Amendment case, not a case involving the rights of voters. At one point,
Chief Justice William Rehnquist asked the attorney who is fighting the drug test
law, Walker Chandler, whether it would be constitutional to require a drug test
of all candidates, with the results to be made public; but no one would be kept
off the ballot, regardless of the results. Chandler answered that this would be
constitutional, since in that case, the voters would have the choice to vote for
someone who had failed the drug test. Chandler was immediately attacked by
Justice Antonin Scalia, who said, "I thought your objection was to the search".

Reporters who covered the hearing, tended to predict that the Court will rule
that states may not impose drug testing on candidates. However, it is likely
that the decision will be based entirely on the 4th amendment, and little will
be said about the rights of candidates and voters.

On January 25-26, in Miami, Florida, the national committee of the U.S.
Taxpayers Party voted not to change the name. The vote was 27-27. Although many
party activists dislike their party's name, they aren't able to agree on a
better one. "Constitutional" and "Independent American" each had some support.

The January 1997 Atlantic Monthly cover story, by Anthony King,
expresses the view that it may have been a mistake for the U.S. to require
political parties to nominate their candidates by primary. It points out that
virtually no other democratic nation uses primaries, and faults the U.S. system.